Seven Preliminary Thoughts on the Tea Parties

Yesterday thousands of people rallied in hundreds of "tea party" protests across the country, expressing anger about the economy, politics, and taxes.

It is easy to make fun of the tea-baggers, to find idiotic quotes, and share pictures of wing-nut signs. It's easy to dismiss the participants as foolish followers of well-paid demagogues. But I'm not going to join the collective progressive dunking of the tea-bagging events. Whenever thousands of people choose to break their usual nonpolitical routine and publicly protest, we should pay attention. We should try to understand, and---for those of who believe that massive structural change of our financial system is in order---we should probably reach out.

These are my preliminary thoughts about the tea parties:

First, I support public expression of political ideas. I am generally more impressed, than distressed, by peaceful, public, political civic action, even where I disagree with the policy goals.

Second, I am troubled that many of the views held by people at the rallies were factually wrong. Global warming is not a socialist scam.

Third, tea parties represent a genuine, authentic civic anger. While the right wing noise machine funded them and hyped them up, they did not pay people to draw posters and show up in Lansing, Michigan, or organize dozens of events in Arizona. Republican Party operatives mobilized for them, funders supported them, and Fox News shilled for them…that still doesn't mean those were fake citizens at the rallies. Funding alone does not turn something into Astroturf.

Fourth, I am not willing to dismiss all rally attendees because of racist views held by some, comicly off-base views held by some, or ugly banners waved by others. I reject the habit of guilt-by-association in public affairs. If each of us had to endorse each banner held by each person at our rallies, we would not ever be on the sidewalk or at a public event.

Fifth, I do not think the rallies represented any coherent political view. The coherent, albeit very dangerous, policy proposals supported by Fox News and Michelle Malkin, cannot be attributed to the citizens protesting.

Sixth, I think the public anger is warranted. We are spending billions of dollars on bank bailouts that will not serve us. People are profoundly, and rightly, insecure about their jobs, where they live, their health care, and the economy. They are concerned, rightly, that the government's response seems to be driven by the financial industry. They are concerned, rightly, about the cost of the programs and the degree of deficit spending.

Seventh, part of this anger is frustration that Congress is not being responsive, and that the administration is taking a "trust us" approach. In the Daily Show's coverage, you'll see video of a sign that reads, "Read the Bill Before Voting." I saw another that read, "Restore the Republic!" Another read, "I read as much of my bill as my Congresswoman." A popular bumper sticker bears the "no taxation without deliberation" slogan.

This CBS news interview of one protester is telling:

"None of our representatives – Republican, independent, or Democratic – listen to us," complained Maura Garvey. "This is a Republic. This is a government for the people, by the people. But that's not happening here."

"This didn't start in January with Obama," she added. "You look back 20, 25 years, it started. It's just that nobody had the gumption to stand up before now, because now it's really gone overboard."

In sum--despite a lot of idiocy surrounding them--the rallies represent real, and justified anger that the public has been largely shut out of the most important public decisions of our time. I hope they serve as a serious call for massive public education about economics. What is a corporation now, and what might a corporation be? What is a growth economy? Do we want a growth economy? What are the current tax rates? What do taxes pay for? What should they pay for? The essence of democracy is collective economic decision-making. If people are not equipped to make those decisions, we either make sure they are, or give up on democracy--I'm not willing to do the latter.

This is not just silly optimism. Every report I read of the rallies suggested a hodge podge of ideas and anger, and there's reason to think progressive outreach makes a difference. Joan Walsh tells this story of Obama supporter Christina Plutarkos at the SF tea party rally:

Plutarkos carried a big yellow sign that on one side read, "The stimulus is already working saving essential jobs ... it's the bailout that's the problem," and on the other asked: "Why did Treasury let AIG close out credit default swaps for 100 cents on the dollar?" I'm not kidding. She was trying to get the tea partiers to turn their anger toward the bailout, and she was getting a fairly respectful hearing.

Plutarkos should be a model for all of us.

Despite the return to the old status quo promised by language of "recovery" and "getting back on track" our economy is in the middle of a massive change. Decisions made right now will impact the shape our economy for decades. And many of the people at the tea party rallies--newly politically active people desperate for a new vision--might support reorganizing the banks, decentralizing the banking structure, limitations that make it impossible for a bank, or a company, to become "too big to fail"--but only if we reach out to them.

Comments (43)

1. Thank you Ms Teachout.

   I appreciate when someone like yourself offers a well thought out and respectful response to the ideas and/or actions of those of us whose views are opposite of your own.

   There are areas of agreement that left and right can find in the midst of this current situation. Thus we can move forward with our recommendations for solving these issues. They are sure to be quite different in most cases, but they need open airing and debate. That is the key to our republic.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:06pm

2. Ms Teachout, here's the problem...SOMEBODY is lying.

   Most of the organizers/leadership of those Tea Parties (specifically guys like Glenn Beck) are claiming that they are "non-partisan" and "criticize BOTH Republicans and Democrats"....yet most of the leadership IS Republican (Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc.)

   Also, WHO are these people seeking to put into office to change the Government to their liking...if not Republicans? Their platform is less about the "bailing out the banks and not the people" than "lower taxes and cut domestic (never defense) spending".

   Those that DO push the idea of a more populist stance are clearly outweighed by those who are pushing the EXACT SAME agenda as last Fall's election from the GOP.

   If they're going to support Ron Paulines (or Ron himself in 2012), do you REALLY think Fox News, Gingrich, Armey, etc., OR the corporate-sponsored front groups, are going to ALLOW that...and hurt the Republican nominee?

   And if this IS a Republican operation...does it matter? Is there anything they're doing on this ONE DAY...that they didn't do for months of campaigning? Any charge against Obama they didn't make before? Any CHANGE in the CURRENT polling, that shows that Republicans are still a "tainted brand" and Obama riding high in approvals?

   So who are these folks? And did ANY of them vote FOR Obama and show a change in support from those who "once" supported him?

   Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 3:28pm

3. You did a great job of putting the Tea Parties in perspective and humanizing their participants. But protests without knowledge and understanding of the facts will not get us very far. Americans need to be better educated in how our economic system works and the advantages and disadvantages of both giving free rein to private enterprise or to government to manage our economy. AIG was bailed out, but what would have been the consequences if it had been left to its own devices? We are told by the government that it would have led to dire consequences not only for the company but the international financial system. But no one so far has really connected the dots for us from AIG's failure to whatever dire consequences would have result. Protest is sufficient we need evidence-based reasons.

   Posted by rayweitzman at 04/16/2009 @ 3:39pm

4. Ray,

   I think you are absolutely RIGHT. I think sharing factual information is the most important thing we can be doing right now.

   ZT

   Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/16/2009 @ 3:40pm

5. And many of the people at the tea party rallies--newly politically active people desperate for a new vision-

   nonsense, a few demonstrators do not political activism make.

   people, who have never done so before, sending money to a candidate, like Obama, that is political activism. and so is all the grass roots organizing that put him in the white house.

   I am not in favor of reaching out to these tea bag clowns. it was a stunt, nothing more.

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2009 @ 3:40pm

6. bless you, ZT. a pure soul through and through.

   and i agree for the most part...but...

   when one acts in ridiculous ways, is not ridicule a natural consequence?

   but indeed. see MASK, above...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/16/2009 @ 3:42pm

7. I think sharing factual information is the most important thing we can be doing right now.

   we tried that, doesn't work with these brainwashed aparatchiks. facts have a leftist slant, don't they?

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2009 @ 3:42pm

8. Revision of previous comment: You did a great job of putting the Tea Parties in perspective and humanizing their participants. But protests without knowledge and understanding of the facts will not get us very far. Americans need to be better educated in how our economic system works and the advantages and disadvantages of either of giving free rein to private enterprise or to government to manage our economy. AIG was bailed out, but what would have been the consequences if it had been left to its own devices? We are told by the government that it would have led to dire consequences not only for the company but the international financial system. But no one so far has really connected the dots for us from AIG's failure to whatever dire consequences would have result. Protest is not sufficient we need evidence-based reasons.

   Posted by rayweitzman at 04/16/2009 @ 3:43pm

9. But no one so far has really connected the dots for us from AIG's failure to whatever dire consequences would have result.

   are the consequences not dire enough for you? by many accounts letting Lehman fail pushed us to where we are now. AIG is much bigger than Lehman.

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2009 @ 3:45pm

10. Predictable responses.

    As a whole, leftists refuse to give any credence to views that are opposite their own. They cannot even acknowledge opposing views as a "different perspective" or a "different political philosophy". The most arrogant types like Emile react with the typical dismissiveness that only an elitist can muster.

    Mask on the other hand, always responds as I've outlined with his Bulverism style of logical fallacy. He is instantly ready to assign the motives and thought to others without any basis of fact. For him, it is his assumptions which are the truth, and no amount of presentation to counter will ever suffice.

    Instead they respond straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

    Rule number 5 of Saul Alinsky's 1971 Rules for Radicals

    "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:58pm

11. we tried that, doesn't work with these brainwashed aparatchiks. facts have a leftist slant, don't they?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/16/2009 @ 3:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    brainwashing = wingnut word for "education"

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/16/2009 @ 3:59pm

12. I appreciate when someone like yourself offers a well thought out and respectful response to the ideas and/or actions of those of us whose views are opposite of your own.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    I was going to ask whether Larry 'appreciated' Mr. Teachout's respectful response enough to emulate it. Then read further in the thread and found this...

    .

    As a whole, leftists refuse to give any credence to views that are opposite their own. They cannot even acknowledge opposing views as a "different perspective" or a "different political philosophy". The most arrogant types like Emile react with the typical dismissiveness that only an elitist can muster.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    ...an arrogant and disrespectful slam providing a rather predictable answer to my question before I could ask it.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009 @ 4:28pm

13. Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009@4:28pm Bingo! my thoughts exactly.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/16/2009 @ 4:37pm

14. Let's Raise High, Our National Half Full Glass!

    This Positive Mental Attitude is the mind-set we must have during our recovery from the eight years of Dark Ages, under the regime of W, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonazles, Wolfowitz, DeLay, and all the other men & women in black, still hiding in the shadows of secrets, lies and make-believe. However, "We the People," must not allow their historical rewrites, to keep our grasp in the past, on their half empty glass. Yes, recognize what happened, and that "We the People," let it happen. Then take affirmative action: go beyond questioning authority – become the authority!

    First, deliver us from evil, by delivering all traitors to the American Constitution, the Rule of Law and International Morality, into the criminal justice system. Second, Purge, Cleanse & Purify ourselves from this murderously low period in our Nation's history, and vow to move forward and upward, not only with our new President, but with each and every culture in the world, beginning with all Americans of whatever political persuasion!

    While the Rovian residue of John Yoo's unique interpretation of morality, the Golden Rule and International Treaties, is something we must sludge our way through for the next decade, we will never wash away our sins, if we insist on carrying around the guilt of moral midgets -- with our without tea bags. Investigate them, Arrest them, Try them, Convict them, Imprison them, but within the context of recapturing America's highest & best aspirations. Then "We the People," free our souls, our International reputation and our economy, from the era of a federal government that simply did not care about the vast number of men, women & children it was not elected to "preserve, protect and defend."

    So let's put down

    Posted by TopTVDirector at 04/16/2009 @ 4:40pm

15. Protesters, take your teabags & shove 'em. Would prefer that you use tea balls, but will make allowances in this Age of Convenience.

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/16/2009 @ 4:52pm

16. Even if, as Mask pointed out, most of these folks are the same old repubs with the same old agenda, Ms. Teachout is right that there may be an educational opportunity here. What many sincere repubs fail to grasp is that the republican politicians not only fail to give federal money to the poor (a stance which most of them approve of), they also actively give federal money to the wealthy (an activity of which a consistent conservative would not approve.) Unfortunately, the dems are nearly as guilty of the latter activity.

    Hey speaking of cross-partisan issues, I think I heard that the Bush administration proposed going to take-off fees to raise money for airports/air traffic control, but now the Congress is talking about raising the fuel tax for the same purpose. Since right now the commercial airlines subsidize general aviation, the Bush proposal is actually more progressive. (In my neighborhood the general aviation is all Lear jets, so I may have a skewed perspective.)

    Anyone know about this?

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/16/2009 @ 4:57pm

17. While you guys debate the relative merits of right vs. left (a "Peoples' Front of Judea" type argument if ever I heard one), may I remind you that ordinary folk on the right and the left are already overwhelmingly against the bailout?

    And that arguing over which ones of us are bigger jerks is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

    The bank bailout is a disaster that should bring us all together to fight it. We are already agreed on this.

    Please bear in mind that the Tea Party organizers are separate from the participants. I went to the rally yesterday to find out how many people there were pro-bailout. None of the participants were pro-bailout.

    All were anti-bailout.

    You would not believe the generous reception my pro-stimulus, anti-bailout argument received. People were particularly grateful for my simple explanation of the credit default swaps meltdown. They were hungry for more explanations - they're not getting those explanations through the media.

    Tea partiers need your presence, your information. Your intellectual generosity, if you will. They will not "hate" you as long as you show genuine confidence in your perspective and genuine respect for their concerns.

    Please consider leaving your computers and meeting these people eye-to-eye. Showing up... it really counts, and it's what we've been missing as we've let the Internet help to polarize us further and further apart. Please find the person in the Tea Partier, not the political tag.

    Let's not be petty while Goldman Sachs robs the US taxpayer. We gotta be bigger than this. Please.

    Posted by plutarch at 04/16/2009 @ 5:03pm

18. yet most of the leadership IS Republican (Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc.)

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    "if you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country you're gonna need a Dick Armey"

    david shuster

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/16/2009 @ 5:07pm

19. posted by ZEPHYR TEACHOUT on 04/16/2009 @ 2:54pm

    I think we definitely think similarly on the bailout. Furthermore, with respect to the "trust me" approach of the Obama administration on this issue, I think the Democrats in general are not afraid to pull fast ones. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, the two supposed "liberals from Washington State", just voted with Republicans to lift the exemption (a lot) on the estate tax. The Democrats in general are happy to rely on their populist image to garner "trust" which may not be warranted.

    Posted by syfriendly at 04/16/2009 @ 5:18pm

20. Yeah...no-body on the right knows how to bait their opponents...c'mon, Anti.

    Is foisting the foibles of all men onto 'radical liberals' only...any less fallacious than Maskie's barrage of pointed barbs?

    Have I not engaged you in civilized discussion, ribald though my manner may come across?

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 4:45pm

    You do, and it appears some have misconstrued my comments (see Lillian who always does). there are some on the left here with whom I have had enjoyable and spirited dialogue. I include you in that grouping. There are others like Emile and Lillian who utter the word conservative as if it were an expletive.

    I readily admit that with those I allow my darker angels to come forth.

    With those who actually believe in open debate and the engagement of differing philosophies and ideals, I am always courteous and appreciative.

    Then there is Mask. The best I can offer about him; he is like the child who always follows your answer with 10 more questions. yet he seldom offers any real input or solutions of his own.

    You are a welcome addition to these blogs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 5:29pm

21. Having attended a tea party last night it was obvious that the spaeakers were all sound bites with little substance. They abhorred spending and government growth but had no solutions. It was all show and no substance. But put some of these attendees in a room and tell them to balance the budget and they would do it. The politicians just can't balance a budget.

    Posted by notsleepy at 04/16/2009 @ 5:30pm

22. plutarch, well said--lovely

    Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/16/2009 @ 6:03pm

23. ZT, your diagnosis of our political predicament is wonderful, and I do not doubt that it is accurate. We need to extend a hand to misguided protesters. Of course, recognizing this is one thing. Actually reaching out in a way that works is quite another.

    I look around for ways to "reach" people whose views are in my estimation dangerously ignorant, but I am ill-practiced in the "sleight-of-mouth" techniques that may promise, at least for talented speakers, to move minds with words in a positive direction.

    This kind of work is important, but I fear it is for someone who is braver, more charismatic, and more quick-tongued than I am.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/16/2009 @ 7:25pm

24. I am in Portland Oregon for work all week and heard this rumbling and the cheers of a crowd. Out of curiosity I followed, the sound to find a group of "teabaggers" (anyone else find that term hilarious?) gathered around the old courthouse. Lots of signs, about mortgaged futures for grandchildren, don't tread on me flags. I was trying to hear the speaker and figure out what he was really about. He started going through a list of what he believes in each statement followed by the cheers of the crowd. Statements like "we believe in liberty", "we believe in our childrens future", "we believe in fiscal responsibility", and "we believe in the ten commandments" at this last statement I left. I realized at that point that many of the people there were those who have blind faith in their chosen spiritual guide. I knew blind faith exists in an absence of logic and I could have no meaningful discussions.

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/16/2009 @ 7:37pm

25. These so-called Tea Parties remind me of the poet William Butler Yeats' lament in his 1920 poem 'The Second Coming': "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." And, where are 'the best' in America today? Not on TV, or radio, and not at the protests on April 15. We need to protest, yes, but let's organize a bunch of well-read, well-informed, articulate folks who know how to think and who refuse to use silly slogans.

    Posted by badlady2 at 04/16/2009 @ 8:12pm

26. With those who actually believe in open debate and the engagement of differing philosophies and ideals, I am always courteous and appreciative. Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 5:29pm

    Well, Anti...that is disingenuous at best...

    Yet, I have to take issue with a few of the 'reasons' Ms. Teachout gives for her support of these tea parties. First, it's clear that these "rallys" are meant to promote right-wing propaganda. Whatever genuine anger there is is trumped by the failure of republican leadership to answer the simple questions posed by some in the media: why now? Where was the outrage 8 years ago? etc.

    Unfortunately, it looks like this is clear partisanship at work....under a veneer of anger over economic issues.

    The next 'tea party' will be 'end times' rallies in the next few years. Crazy people will sell everything and gather together like Millerites. That will make these tea parties seem quaint.

    Posted by erazma at 04/16/2009 @ 8:43pm

27. Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:58pm

    Okay, Larry....what IS the motivation of the attendees of the Tea Parties that is NOT a standard conservative agenda that is the backbone of ONE political party, the Republican Party?

    And if there are some "Democratic/liberal ideas" at the Tea Parties....what are they?

    Or after another of your denials, are you going to basically and long-windedly admit I was RIGHT and this is just a conservative/partisan movement....ergo, nothing special from what was campaigned on last Fall, primarily by Palin but co-opted by McCain and by most if not all the Congressional Republican candidates?

    and therefore....nothing new?

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 9:20pm

28. Then there is Mask. The best I can offer about him; he is like the child who always follows your answer with 10 more questions. yet he seldom offers any real input or solutions of his own.---Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 5:29pm

    Then there is Larry Robinson, ersatz minister/auto insurance salesman/tax preparer....hypocrite.

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 9:21pm

29. Zephyr,

    You're making some very good points here. I am an Obama supporter--a very strong supporter--and yet I attended the tea party in Boston as a citizen journalist to make up my own mind about this protest. You are right that the protesters are raising some very important criticisms of the Obama administration. I had several interesting conversations with protesters which I wrote about here:

    http://www.bottomupchange.com/what-the-tea-party-protesters-want/

    However, the level of anger and vitriol at the President at these rallies was really over the top and can't be excused. The hatred that some feel towards Obama and the siege mentality is potentially explosive. This is all the more troubling in that Obama has only been in office for three months.

    Best, Jared

    Posted by Jared2.0 at 04/16/2009 @ 10:09pm

30. Predictable responses.

    As a whole, leftists refuse to give any credence to views that are opposite their own. They cannot even acknowledge opposing views as a "different perspective" or a "different political philosophy". The most arrogant types like Emile react with the typical dismissiveness that only an elitist can muster.

    Mask on the other hand, always responds as I've outlined with his Bulverism style of logical fallacy. He is instantly ready to assign the motives and thought to others without any basis of fact. For him, it is his assumptions which are the truth, and no amount of presentation to counter will ever suffice.

    Instead they respond straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

    Rule number 5 of Saul Alinsky's 1971 Rules for Radicals

    "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:58pm

    Haha. Dear God LVL. You are hilarious. It sounds like you are describing yourself. The person who has they don't even want to be around people with opposing views to their is criticizing others. Hilarious. You write anyone with an opposing view to yours off as misinformed or childish and you criticize anyone else? Give me a break you are living proof of what it is to plug your ears when someone thinks differently than you.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 10:09pm

31. "There are others like Emile and Lillian who utter the word conservative as if it were an expletive."

    Says the person who uses the term liberal as if they have tasted something bad and groups every liberal as a Communist whether that is their political belief or not. For instance I already disproved you Marxist or even socialist belief about me and yet you have still been unable to acknowledge it.

    "I readily admit that with those I allow my darker angels to come forth."

    Even when I try to engage you in simple debate you turn to arrogant responses when you feel cornered. Either that or you just ignore it. Maybe the reason people who have been here a while don't bother with debate with you is because they see that you aren't interested in debate you are interested in telling everyone here that they are a socialist or Marxist and not caring about other's opinions.

    "With those who actually believe in open debate and the engagement of differing philosophies and ideals, I am always courteous and appreciative."

    That's a joke. I try to have open debate with you and it usually ends in you being insulting.

    "Then there is Mask. The best I can offer about him; he is like the child who always follows your answer with 10 more questions. yet he seldom offers any real input or solutions of his own."

    Can't argue that.

    You can generalize people all you want. But the one common factor here is you. I try to engage people in open honest debate all the time and generally defend them when people are being downright insulting as I have done on multiple occasions for you. Yet you continue to insult people including me. I think it's more out of arrogance and close mindedness, the same things you accuse everyone else of.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 10:19pm

32. They should've tea-bagged a few years ago and maybe they'd be relevent.

    It's easy to cry foul about the bailouts without knowing the consequences of letting AIG, et al... go down the tubes.

    Just as it's easy to decry the stimulus bill while you still have a job.

    The wheels were set in motion a long time ago and it's just a little late in the day for these tea baggers to be taken seriously.

    Posted by koroviev at 04/16/2009 @ 11:39pm

33. I knew blind faith exists in an absence of logic and I could have no meaningful discussions.

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/16/2009 @ 7:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So you did NOT vote for the Obamanation of desolation President either?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 05:35am

34. Remember back not too long ago when the PATRIOT Act, FISA re-regulation, off -budget war funding and other bills flew through congress without being read? Where was the outrage then?

    As I have pointed out, and will continue to point out, the current "Obama haters" were either MIA for 8 years or actively supported policies that got us where we are. They wanted industry/business watching over themselves, they wanted AIG to be able to give large sums to congress, they wanted Big Government spying on them, they opposed regulation that would have prevented under-capitalization and massive leveraging, they allowed AIG to grow "too big to fail".

    "Support the Troops" was all they needed to hear to get behind a thousand page bill that spent hundreds of billions of their dollars, and they called anybody that asked for a slow-go TRAITORS! While I respect their right to peaceably assemble, I will call them out on their rampant hypocrisy and ability to allow THEIR president to do to them what they blame others for.

    It seems like most of the attendees are still fighting the 2008 election. They WILL NOT give Obama a chance at all, they will not come together as they wanted us to do, to go to unneeded war. They are simply opposing for the sake of opposition. They would rather see a mushroom cloud of 25% unemployment, DOW at 1500 and another depression than admit that they have filled the bathtub, drowned the govt and are now living the results of their ideology.

    ---------

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 10:19pm

    You go Brother!!

    Ain't no bigger hypocrite around here than Rev Larry. Name calling, stereotyping and arrogance are his calling cards.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/17/2009 @ 06:50am

35. Brief article with quotes from industry analysts.

    i will leave it up to ANTI to root out the communists and Marxists in the insurance industry, credit analysts and international law firms.

    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national

    /2009/03/02/98278.htm

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/17/2009 @ 06:57am

36. Antisocialist=projection (Freud) antisocialist=hypocracy (Bible)

    could you direct me to an example of your "always courteous and appreciative" posts?

    Posted by ChristianLiberal at 04/17/2009 @ 08:47am

37. Global warming is not a socialist scam.

    Maybe not a socialist scam but a scam nonetheless.

    Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2009 @ 08:52am

38. Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2009 @ 08:52am

    Oddly, nobody in political power or potential political power believes you, abell.

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 09:02am

39. Posted by ChristianLiberal at 04/17/2009 @ 08:47am

    He's appreciative if you AGREE with him, CL.

    See: Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 3:06pm

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 09:03am

40. could you direct me to an example of your "always courteous and appreciative" posts?

    priceless

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2009 @ 7:52pm

41. first: agreed; yet people will take the same 'facts' and draw different conclusions.

    second: agreed; yet people will come to believe almost anything said long enough and if they can find others in similar agreement.

    third: agreed; everyone has a basis that is anything but selfless. dress us up as citizens and we are still human.

    fourth: agreed, somewhat; see 'third'. the guilt-by-asociation we all share is that we don't want to share :). we all belong to the i-want-mine-first group.

    fifth: disagreed; there was an overwhelming waspish, hannitized view on display. i ride the train home in atlanta from the white north to the black south thru overwhelmingly black downtown. going home that day there were many more whites than normal; downtown, MANY more whites than normal; from downtown southward, it was business as usual.

    sixth: agreed, somewhat. 'bailout' is the catch-all term, but with a clear blame-obama echo. it's the 'obama recession'. 'bailout' means bailing out low-income homeowners. it's why they had signs here in downtown atlanta that said, 'honk if i pay your mortgage.'

    seventh: the heart of the matter. those with money maintaining those in control over those who have neither control nor money.

    my bet is that 'gambling' under the guise of 'investing' was not discussed at the teabags. protesters on the 15th fail to entertain the idea they are being used by the very ones they need to rail against.

    the unintended - maybe even intended - consequence is to keep the status quo and create a deepening racial divide. when the 'haves' view other races and groups not as 'have-nots' but as 'those-who-want-mine', the end is frightening.

    oh, and, antisocialist? physician, heal thyself.

    mike rucker fairburn, ga

    Posted by mikerucker at 04/18/2009 @ 10:01am

42. "my bet is that 'gambling' under the guise of 'investing' was not discussed at the teabags. protesters on the 15th fail to entertain the idea they are being used by the very ones they need to rail against."

    -Mike Rucker

    Hi, Mike.

    That's a bad bet. A very bad bet.

    If you had come to the tea party in my town, you would have found that gambling under the guise of investing was, in fact, discussed at length.

    In part, this is because I showed up to explain the situation.

    And the teabaggers were receptive. And the conversations went on for a good hour afterward.

    Now, I'm sure you'll say that just proves how rotten these people are. I'll argue that it just shows we've been ignoring our responsibility to guide people who are vulnerable to Hannity, Limbaugh, et alia.

    What if I had simply dismissed these people? (As you have?) I would have lost the opportunity to point out the problems with the bailout. I would have lost the opportunity to help guide the conversation in a healthy direction.

    In fact, I would have lost the opportunity to learn that some of these people were familiar with the demand put forth by Adam Smith for a reasonable level of government regulation in the markets. That, in fact, happened on Wednesday. And I was thanked profusely for having the cajones to show up and present my case. Not bad!

    Mike, you and I have a responsibility NOT to complain about the other side and how bestial they are. But to provide the education that allows them to be as enlightened as yourself.

    Do you know what I mean?

    I beg you to leave, for a moment, the polarizing internet and greet your political opposites with warmth and intellectual generosity. I guarantee you they will receive you well.

    You and I can and should have a healthy, moderating influence on them.

    Posted by plutarch at 04/18/2009 @ 5:11pm

43. Given all the public concern about present spending, it seems a national "Economics 101" is in order here. The massive deficit spending itself is intentional and purposeful.

    The ways every day people use make it appear to behave like gold coin. From this, people draw erroneous conclusions like: 1) Federal debts must be repaid. -- Growth in global demand for treasury notes, shows no sign of abating. We call it debt because we pay interest on the treasury notes, but those payments simply maintain the value of the note for the recipient. This isn't foreign investment in our tangible assets, but in our currency. The principle never gets repaid in aggregate so long as the demand does not shrink.

    2) "Printing" more money always devalues it (inflation). -- A small amount of inflation is mandatory for our currency. Deflation is a literal increase in the valuation of the dollar relative to real assets. If that occurs, one can expect to gain purchasing power by holding dollars. As is readily apparent, the dollar cannot accrue real value just sitting there as it does nothing. Yet that is what people are tempted to do - hold currency instead of using it to increase economic activity. Taken to extreme, we all sit around holding paper waiting to become rich. We'd end up with no jobs, no food, nothing. This is one of the key reasons for the level of spending, to ensure inflation, without which the free market which generates our real wealth will collapse.

    The underlying cause goes back to changes in expectations. The 20th century witnessed a rate of growth that we cannot currently sustain. The oil price spike in 08 made that change's impact felt. Recognition that ever growing consumption must slow now is a shock to a growth oriented economy, but one we can and will recover from.

    Posted by AmyL at 04/21/2009 @ 09:55am